> Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> writes:>>> I hate how anonymous our branches are. Sure, we can use good names for>> them, but it was a mistake to think we should describe the repository>> (for gitweb), rather than the branch.>>>> Ok, "hate" is a strong word. I don't "hate" it. I don't even think>> it's a major design issue. But I do think that it would have been>> nicer if we had had some branch description model.>> ...>> Maybe just verifying the email message (with the suggested kind of>> change to "git request-pull") is actually the right approach. And what>> I should do is to just wrap my "git pull" in some script that I can>> just cut-and-paste the gpg-signed thing into, and which just does the>> "gpg --verify" on it, and then does the "git pull" after that.>>>> Because in many ways, "git request-pull" is when you do want to sign>> stuff. A developer might well want to push out his stuff for some>> random internal testing (linux-next, for example), and then only later>> decide "Ok, it was all good, now I want to make it 'official' and ask>> Linus to pull it", and sign it at *that* time, rather than when>> actually pushing it out.>> You keep saying cut-and-paste, but do you mind feeding the e-mail text> itself to a tool, instead of cut-and-paste?

think webmail (i.e. gmail), to feed the e-mail itself to a tool you either need to cut-n-paste the entire e-mail or you have to first save the mail to a text file. both of which are significantly harder than doing a cut-n-past of a portion of the message.

David Lang

> The reason I am wondering about this is because in another topic (also in> 'next') cooking there is an extended support for topic description for the> branch that states what the purpose of the topic is why the requestor> wants you to have it (this information can be set and updated with "git> branch --edit-description").>> A respond-to-request-pull wrapper you would use could be:>> - Get the e-mail from the standard input;> - Pick up the signed bits and validate the signature;> - Perform the requested fetch; and> - Record the merge (or prepare .git/MERGE_MSG) with both the signed bits.>> and the "signed bits" could include:>> - the repository and the branch you were expected to pull;> - the topic description.>> among other things the requestor can edit when request-pull message is> prepared.>> That would get us back to your "the lieutenant tip is not so special, but> the merge commit the integrator makes using that tip has the signature for> this particular pull" model.> --> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html>